"Atheist proves god does exist"

If god is ever proved to exist I would suggest that it will proably be an atheist who does it as they are generally more curious in the sciences. How would that sit with the mainstream religions? Because:

A, This may be very unappealing to conventional wisdom (will the atheist be held aloft?)
B, All of the religions except one will be wrong (if not all) (?)
C, What would this spell for the continuation of any form of praising as god will now be tangible and have his own methods, that do not necessarily relate to conventional wisdom?

If god is ever proved to exist I would suggest that it will proably be an atheist...

Click to expand...

Howd'ya figure that out?

...who does it as they are generally more curious in the sciences. How would that sit with the mainstream religions?

Click to expand...

Why are atheists more curious in the sciences?
In light of this idea, what do mainstream religions have to do with anything?

Because:

A, This may be very unappealing to conventional wisdom (will the atheist be held aloft?)
B, All of the religions except one will be wrong (if not all) (?)
C, What would this spell for the continuation of any form of praising as god will now be tangible and have his own methods, that do not necessarily relate to conventional wisdom?

No one will ever disprove/prove his existence with philosophical debate. In fact its impossible to do it with science, maths or anything.

Only God himself could prove he exists. Nothing will ever disprove he exists.
Get over it.

Click to expand...

1, You assume god doesn't want us to know. Maybe the prerequisite for contact is discovery? You assume that traditional concepts of god would apply.

2,I agree that we can never prove god doesn't exist because he may always be beyond.

3, I stated IF god is ever proved to exist. So IF god is proved to exist it would make sense that someone interested in the boundaries of science would make that discovery? Praying and praising has failed so far to acquire evidence as is blatantly obvious when discussing with religious-types.

Is no one willing to counter with an argument rather than stating the obvious? It was a generalisation of a probable stat projection I was asserting.
This being the opening to the further points I made that nobody seems willing to tackle.

Why are atheists more curious in the sciences?
In light of this idea, what do mainstream religions have to do with anything?

Click to expand...

Ha ha. Because what would christianity (as example) make of an unbeliever holding such a coveted position. We aren't talking about a dubious visitation. We are talking about tangible evidence. Would this sit well with the main theist establishments?

Will this be the God of scripture?

jan.

Click to expand...

Which one lol?

Anyway, what has scripture to do with it when most of the scripture will be proved false? Or do you believe the different religions are alligned?

Atheists is a big grouping. Some willing to entertain notions of possibilities of god, some not. In Britain (as an example) there are a darn sight more people who don't believe than who do. And within the sciences I would say that the percentage is higher still. So if discovery of evidence of god is a fringe thing, which is suggested by traditional religions total lack of scientific (find the truth) evidence. Then it holds that science pushing outwards or inwards will be the source of discovery.

This point is only the opener. Can You tackle the following A B and C in an logical way?

If god is ever proved to exist I would suggest that it will proably be an atheist who does it as they are generally more curious in the sciences. How would that sit with the mainstream religions? Because:

A, This may be very unappealing to conventional wisdom (will the atheist be held aloft?)
B, All of the religions except one will be wrong (if not all) (?)
C, What would this spell for the continuation of any form of praising as god will now be tangible and have his own methods, that do not necessarily relate to conventional wisdom?

The following rules and guidelines for posting in the Religion forum exist to create and maintain a high standard of interesting and informative debate on the topic of Religion where it intersects science with regard to policy, progress and cultural development as well as the examination of Religion from a scientific standpoint as with the fields of sociology, anthropology, psychology and neurology.

Click to expand...

Religion is more interesting from an atheist's view than it is from a theist's. Atheists are prepared to engage in all aspects of discussion about religion as above. Theists seem to just want to avoid these ideas?

Scientists are the ones who look everywhere, not theists, notably Victor Stenger, who took all of science into account, writing a book to summarize it, finding only the natural and nothing extra, super, or beyond, and this is for a Theity who is even supposed to be everywhere, doing everything. Even one measly counterexample would have sufficed. Victor is also atheist, so he was sure to look in that particular regard. The conclusion is that absence of evidence, for a Theity, is indeed evidence of absence.

I don't even use this surplus argument for my disproofs of God, because mine must apply to a Deity as well. Yet, for a Theity, which is the greater notion of the three main religions, it works fine.